August 16, 2004

Rule 2: If the incumbent receives less than a majority of the popular vote, see Rule No. 1.

Rule 3: If you had to consult Rule #2 to reach Rule #1, make your lie believable. Claim 100% of the vote, and even your staunchest supporters will not believe you. A 58%-42% landslide is just about as good as it gets.

10 Responses to “Chavez Learns From Hussein, Davis’s Mistakes”

Hmm. Is there any way you would have believed an outcome by which Chavez had won? Or is it a foregone conclusion in your mind that the people want him out and any result which says otherwise is a fraud?

I will believe the election was legit if/when enough foreign observers conclusively determine that it was. Barring that, I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that the people wanted this despot out, but I do think it was a foregone conclusion that he was going to “win,” whether legitimately or otherwise. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable assumption, given Chavez’s own history. Remember, he’s already tried to come to power twice before, once legitimately, and once otherwise. Democracy for him was Plan B.

XRLQ – I ask because the tone of your post presumes that Chavez’ regime was engaged in electoral skullduggery, and i’ve not heard anything to substantiate that other than the rhetoric of his opponents … eg, the only “evidence” i’ve seen is pro-administration forces saying the results were clean and anti-administration forces saying the results weren’t. I don’t trust those who want him outsted any more than I trust him, and I was surprised at the tone of your rhetoric, which seemed to me to have assumed Chavez’ criminality and the credibility of his opponents.

On another subject – why the animus towards Carter? Whatever you thought of his presidency, his work as an observer of foreign elections appears, as far as I can tell, to have been entirely above board.

The intended tone was “Chavez is scum, and I wouldn’t put it past him to steal this election.” The jury is still out as to whether or not he actually did steal the election. My guess is that he didn’t have to, although I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to why the early exit polls showed him losing by roughly the margin he ended up (allegedly) winning by.

As to Carter, I frankly think he’s an even worse ex-President than he was as a President. Whether it’s Iraq, “Palestine,” or anything else, he has a nasty habit of undermining the policies of every other President who has followed him. That said, I’m not aware of him having engaged in any misconduct relating to election observations per se. At most, I question the wisdom of sticking his neck out this early on to say “no fraud” rather than “we don’t know yet.” Thus far, the opposition has merely screamed “fraud” without alleging the particulars. Soon, they’ll have to, but I’m inclined to give them at least a few days to before dismissing such concerns out of hand.

Considering that most exit polling said that Chavez lost, it’s quite surprising that he “won” by such a large margin. Granted, polling in third world countries can be unreliable, but that means they were off by at least ten points, probably more.